I drove to Colorado Springs and back over 6 days. Only 50 miles from home the passenger front tire started coming apart and making a weird noise. All 4 tires are brand new. They are Tiger Paw AWP II tires. The dealer I bought the X300 from put them on before I bought it. I did drive 120 the day before for literally 30 seconds but would that cause this to a tire rated for 118 MPH? I drove 80-90 MPH during the trip. I was only going 80 MPH when the tire came apart. Does anyone know what would cause this? I changed it to my spare right then and drove the last 50 miles with the spare.

 

I'd have a hard time believing that 30 seconds @ 120 would cause this.

I think it's simply a defective tire.

Cheers
DD

 

They don't look like great tyres
I wouldnt go 120 on tyres called Tiger Paw. Perhaps I would on Bridgestones.
Take'em back - they look positively lethal

 

I am with Doug and Al.

They look cheap and nasty.

I have been caught out a few times over the years, and now I just settle for Bridgestone, BF Goodrich, Goodyear.

Down here we have a blanket 110KPH speed limit, and still get tyre failures from the cheaper stuff. See them on the road side all the time.

Dealers here, as in "Used car dealers" are reknown for fitting the cheapest they can fit that are kind of within spec, IF they are forced to fit tyres to seal a deal.

 

Interesting... I'd take the tire back. Looking the Tiger Paw up, they receive good reviews.

It appears that Uniroyal Goodrich is owned by Michelin, one would think they'd stand behind their tire....

 

I've never bought a tire with a speed rating less than Z. The other value that's important is the load rating - not sure what this tire's L.R. is, but "to me" a T speed rating is unacceptable.

If the dealer chose the tires, I'd guess these cost $50-60-something USD - another clue to steer [sic] away.

This might be a case of manufacturing defect. I would *definitely* take it back to the dealer so Uniroyal can analyze it. Tire manufacturers need these data points. Be sure to mention the speeds you were driving.

I'd also examine the other tires, esp the one on the same side - was it possibly something on / in the road itself (?).

 

Definitely check the load rating. The X300 is a heavy car, and one thing I found when shopping for tires is that many tires that "fit" dimensionally were not rated for the weight of the car.

If the load rating was appropriate, you probably just have a defective tire. It happens even to really good tires.

And BTW, Tiger Paw tires are not bad tires. They are cheaper tires, made by Uniroyal, but not junk and have been around for decades.

.

 

Assuming a standard XJ6 and 225/60x16 size...

I couldn't find any Uniroyal tire in that size with *less* than a 98 load rating, which is more than sufficient. In fact, every 225/60x16 I saw ...granted, just a few minutes of Googling....had a 98 or higher rating.

Cheers
DD

 

Same here....although you don't have to spend top dollar to get a safe tire, nor does doing so guarantee the best result. But...you already know that

Very few accidents are tire related...in the USA at least. The number escapes me at the moment but something like 2 or 3 percent. Possibly a combination of speed limits and gradual improvement in tire quality over the decades? I dunno.

Cheers
DD

 

What tire pressures were you running?

What date code is on the tires?

Perhaps they were brand new, but old and dry.

 

For what it's worth, and mind you, this is in no way legal advice, here's my two cents...near as I can tell, the OEM tires were 225/60ZR16.

Did a little more poking around and found the following:

Jaguar tire information
even though your oem tires were not "V" rated, I'd assume this would still apply'

and from the Uniroyal site:

1996 Jaguar XJ6 Base Tires | Uniroyal Tire

note the last section that basically says we don't make a tire for your vehicle




Uniroyal is a fine tire in it's own right, looks to me like the dealer didn't pay attention when he put the tires on your car. And, while the size is correct, near as I can tell, this tire is not rated for your vehicle therefore possibly endangering you and your vehicle. I believe someone in the comments above mentioned dealers that just put tires on cars to make them look good???? Hmmmmm.

 

I had a set of Michelin Defender tires installed. The ride was much softer.

 

The tire in question has load index of 96 which is too low for heavy X300. Hence it fell apart.

 

According to this tech page it's a 97 load rating
$89.47 - Tiger Paw AWP II P225/60R16 tires | Buy Tiger Paw AWP II tires at SimpleTire




Assuming proper inflation, I seriously doubt that that's the cause.

96 = 1565 lb rating x4 = 6260 lb
97 = 1608 lb rating x 4 = 6432
98 = 1653 lb rating x 4 =6612

Curb weight of an X300/XJ6 is about 4200 pounds

I ran '96' rated tires on my X300 and they certainly didn't fall apart

Cheers
DD

 

Quite possible.

Judging form the Uniroyal site it appears that Uniroyal no longer makes the AWP II in the 225/60x16....which suggests the tires in question were old stock.

Cheers
DD

 

That's years old! The 15" tires in V-rating have been virtually extinct for years now, including the examples mentioned in the blurb. The overwhelming majority of older Jags are running around on T and S rated tires with no difficulty at all. There is typically a small sacrifice in steering response...which most owners don't even notice or care.

Drivers who might notice a difference have gone to 16" or larger wheels


That's their legal department doing its job!

Uniroyal probably has at least a couple models which would be perfectly appropriate for the X300 Jag, suiting the needs and driving habits of most drivers. But, technically speaking, they don't meet spec.

Here's one:

Sears.com

It lacks the higher speed rating but has the 98 load rating. A week's pay says that 95% of real world X300 owners would be perfectly happy with this tire and, unless they go over 130 mph, will be perfectly safe.


Emphasis on the 'possibly'

Cheers
DD

 

I don't think the situation with load ratings and speed ratings is quite as simple as has been suggested. The static weight of the car compared with the load rating weight is one thing, but dynamically, the car can generate significantly higher loadings, and on individual tyres rather than evenly spread, for example when cornering or braking. Similarly, speed ratings are not just about absolute top speed, but are an indication of the strength of the carcass construction.
I am always surprised at how we can be so particular about some aspects of vehicle maintenance, and yet quite cavalier about one of the key safety elements, tyres.
That said, I very much doubt the marginally lower than spec load rating would cause the tyres to "disintegrate" , and similarly would doubt that old age would be the issue. Old tyres tend to harden, which seriously reduces grip, particularly in the wet, but I doubt it would cause then to fall apart.
I would be inclined to start with the inflation pressures and the alignment, although both would have to be fairly severely out of whack to destroy a set of tyres in 2000 miles. There should be a number of clues in the tyres themselves, as the manner of their destruction should be evident to a tyre fitter from the carcass.
As you were driving on the highway, I will discount the other obvious explanation of "track" driving mode being employed. That gets through tyres pretty quickly on an X 300!

 

Not as cavalier as you might think.


-From observation we know that here in the USA we seldom drive at more than 80 mph or so. We also know from observations that few Jag owners drive in a manner anywhere approaching the capability of the car

-From conversations we know that most Jag owners ( or car owners in general) are really not concerned with steering response, braking response or other tire related attributes.

-We know from the NHTSA an incredibly small percentage of accidents are tire related.....something like 2% or such. Of these, the majority are due to improper inflation....not improper tire choice or other factors.

-While Jaguars are often referred to as being particularly heavy...and this is often the justification for strict adherence to spec... here in the 'States cars weighing 4000-4500 pounds are not unusual. We've had 'em for years and years....and got along perfectly well, and perfectly safely, without needing high specification tires.


It was a *single tire*, not a full set of tires

My money's still on the fault being a manufacturing defect

Cheers
DD

 

I don't think that you can just multiply the load index by 4 and compare it to the curb weight of the car. I seem to remember reading that X300 Jaguars required tire with load index of 98 or 99. When I shop for X300 tires on tirerack, all options that they offer seem to have at least a 98 load rating. I suspect that they may have a reason for that.

 

No, but the tires will never have to support more than half of the GAWR for whichever axle they are mounted on (F or R)
I don't recall offhand which axle rating is greater on the X300, but you can take the greater, divide by 2, and if your tire spec meets or exceeds that, then you'll be just fine so long as you maintain proper inflation pressures. As a checksum, multiply that tire rating by 4 and confirm that the product exceeds the GVWR found on the same label that lists the GAWR's (if not, check your maths!)

BTW, curb weight is the wrong figure, you may actually want to load the boot and haul adults in at least 4 of the 5 available seats...so use the gross vehicle weight.

Just found a pic of my label(wts given in lbs):
Frt Axle: 2310
Rr axle: 2700
GVWR: 5010

So if your tire has a wt rating of 1350+, keep it at or above 35 psi and you're good.